IN REVELATION 18, WHO IS BABYLON THE GREAT. PERSONAL VIEWS ONLY

---

Clarification of Question by pugwashjw-ga on 05 Apr 2005 19:48 PDT

Just to "keep the pot boiling", so to speak, the idea that Babylon the
Great was the Roman political system goes against the scripture at
Revelation 18;3, where it states that "the kings of the earth
committed fornication with her" and " the travelling merchants became
rich due to the power of her shameless luxury". Would you agree that
the 'kings of the earth' are governments and politics, and the
'travelling merchants' is/are the general business community. If so,
then Babylon is a third entity, neither politics nor business. This
leaves only religion. Looking forward to your comments. Pug.

---

Clarification of Question by pugwashjw-ga on 10 Apr 2005 00:11 PDT

In this discussion, Slakemoth says that 'Babylon the Great' was the
Roman Empire, and the Kings of the Earth were 'other governments' that
had dealings with them. Surely there were other governments/Kingdoms
in existance at the time that were equally as cruel, although maybe
not as powerful. Why would John separate out just one political force
from all existing at the time and be so severely judgemental.
Revelation is not just about the times of Jesus. It includes us today
and the Romanire has developed into the ' Western Powers'. And
Religion delving in politics and business is still with us. It must be
this that will be attacked by current governments and wailed over by
the business community. God will allow it to be destroyed, but as soon
as these powers attack the religion that God approves of, the Bible
says it will be like touching his eyeball...very painful..even for
him. Zechariah 2;8

---

Clarification of Question by pugwashjw-ga on 11 Apr 2005 20:56 PDT

PCMOMMA; Excuse my ignorance, but I am unsure of who John MacArthur
is. But your answer agrees with my estimation. The reason for my
question was to generate some thinking by anyone interested in the
Bible, and to see how many would cite the scriptures to back up their
stance. A comment was made that inspired scriptures can be from men.
the Bible says otherwise at 2Timothy 3;16,17.." ALL scripture is
inspired of God, and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for
setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. 17. that
the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every
good work". Looking forward to more comments. Pug.

It is the Roman Empire. It is important to realize that much of
Revelation is symbolism. John ( the writer) was a prisoner on the
Greek Isle of Patmos, at a time where the paranoia of early christians
was at an all time high (and justifiably so). Written about 95-100 AD.
the Hebrews had seen the second great destruction of the Temple by
Rome in 70 A.D. things were very uncertain and the early christians
had been suffering under quite a run of Roman Emperors. After
Tiberius, came Caligula (insane as they come), Claudius, then Nero (
37-41 AD). As crazy as his predecessors were, Nero took just about
every opportunity to blame the problems of the empire on the
christians and took every opportunity to murder and torture them. The
fear Nero instilled was legendary in his time. Although he commited
suicide in 41, people were never really convinced that he was dead.
Flash forward through a flurry of emperors and we come to Domitian.
Domitian began a full scale persecution of christians simply based on
their religion ( as opposed to Nero's lunacy and scapegoating) , and
things were reaching a fevered pitch. A common theme in the bible's
writings, people were leaving "christianity" from fear of punishment
and death, or simple attraction to a more current religion ( this is
the theme behind Daniel). People who were outspoken were promptly
thrown in prison, murdered, or tortured. John was one of these
"religious prisoners". Now at this time rumors began to circulate
saying Nero was not really dead and was returning to the Emperorship
of Rome. The christians were freaking out and scared to death. They
still remembered Nero's reign of terror. As Kennith Davis says in
"Don't know much about the Bible"... This intense paranoia and fear
was the backdrop for John's Revelation.

So to answer your question...John's letters in Revelation were
directed to 7 churches, and in a nutshell were a call to arms to "hold
the faith" and not give up, even though things looked pretty bleak. It
was a rally cry to stand firm. The imagery is of course out of
control, but dire times call for serious writings. They were
symbolically naming Rome by recalling the great Babylonian empire that
destroyed the first great Temple and exiled the Hebrews. Every jew and
early christian was quite familiar with the history Babylon had
inflicted on their people, and the symbolism was not lost. Most
biblical scholars agree that the 666 of revelation is a clear
reference to Nero. Revelation tells of a great battle but ultimate
victory and a new kingdom for those who don't give up the cause and
hold the faith. The bad guy gets his in the end and everything is
wonderful. While the persecution continued, the early christian
movement held firm and eventually in 367 AD, Emperor Constantine
converted and made christianity the official state religion of the
Roman empire...and the rest is history.

Today people still try to make the imagery of Revelation fit current
events of the world. They imagery and symbolism of revelation is
certainly "loose" enough to work in many situations, but in my opinion
its the same as psychic's "cold reading" technique. Say something
vague enough and people will make it fit anything they want it to. All
books of the Bible must be viewed within the historical context of
when they were written, and Revelation is no different. While its
message can certainly be timeless, especially to christians who feel
as if the world is out to get them, It must be read in a realistic
light.

hope this helps..

Thanks, I liked that, but was just beginning to wonder why Pugwash
hadn't signed on, and then saw that it was his/your question.

Yes ... but why did Constantine convert?

Because the Christians offered him the better deal.

hah...sure... Most historians agree that Constantine's conversion
wasn't all the miracle that it was cracked up to be. Tradition says
that Constantine had a vision that told him he would win an upcoming
battle if he rode in under the banner of the cross. He did win the
battle and a-christian-he-became. In truth his mother had become a
christian and supposedly was putting pressure on him to convert. At
that time as well the tide had really turned and christianity had
built up a lot of steam. ever the savy politician Constantine was no
dummy and saw the writing on the wall, He saw a perfect opportunity to
convert and elevate himself in the eyes of the people. His description
of teh vision and subsequent victory came after the battle was over
and won. He eventually started to push paganism to the background and
reinforce christianity. His conversion was probably the biggest
turning point for christianity to explode throughout the world.

Yes indeed, Slakemoth, Constantine not only "saw the writing on the
wall," he heeded it, which proves that one can learn from history. 
Nebuchadnezzar did not.
That suggests that C. had been doing his homework by reading the Torah
before his conversion.
But really, it was his Mum's influence:  "Sonny (maybe Conny), if you
don't convert, I'm going to stop doing your laundry and cooking your
favorite dish on Sundays."

Awwww mom!!!! OK...i'll do it... but I still want my face on the
coins...I'm not giving that up!! ( I knew I should have learned to
make that lasagna myself...)

I respectfully disagree? ( with your clarification statement).
Understand that to the Roman empire, religions meant nothing. While
there was a ?worship? so to speak of the Emperors as a ?godhead? and
support for paganism the empire never really cared who worshiped what
as long as the taxes rolled in from the far reaches of the empire. A
common misconception you will hear is that Jesus was killed because he
made a claim to be the son of God, and this threatened the Roman
emperor?s divine status so he had to be killed. This is quite far from
the truth, and frankly people that claimed to be the son of God were
quite plentiful. It was all about ?feeding the machine?, i.e. keeping
the coffers full of money. As long as the taxes were paid, the empire
really didn?t care what you did, or who you worshiped.  I believe it
was Caligula who tried to put his own face on a statue in a temple and
the people became so riled up at the idea he backed off, so the masses
weren?t without representation.
	Anyway in response to your question I would say simply in my opinion,
that under the guidelines I talked about before, i.e. that John was
rallying against the ?giving up? of Christianity the passages you
quoted fit quite nicely. With Babylon representing Rome, John is
calling out those who are having dealings with them, or in his mind
going along with their program, and by proxy the persecution of the
early Christians. "the kings of the earth committed fornication with
her" is calling out all the other countries, or governments that are
supporting and dealing with Rome, or in a modern context were ?in bed
with them?.  "The traveling merchants became rich due to the power of
her shameless luxury" is simply calling out those that choose to do
business with Rome and thereby are in essence supporting their
policies, and giving them money. Having grown up in Florida I have
heard similar language from the Cuban community, who are greatly
offended ( and rightly so) by those countries, politicians, or people
that support Cuba. Buying Cuban cigars?, well you are supporting the
oppressive government,? French people who continued to vacation at
Cuban resorts.. well they are supporting Castro as well. The Roman
empire had become bloated and corrupt no doubt, and of course would
eventually collapse on itself.
		You have to remember as well that John was in prison for being a
rabble rouser. He could not ?name names? or come right out and
implicate Rome, so that is why so much of the writing is symbolic. 
You could not say ?Nero is a stinker?, but you could symbolically call
him out as a beast with a number of 666. Everyone in your target
audience knew what you meant, but other would not ( he was the master
of  ?l33t 5p34k? ( me so funny)). Babylon was no longer an empire to
be feared, but by calling a government ?Babylon? everyone got the
hint. Having the final battle take place at Megiddo was overwhelmingly
symbolic to the masses. Megiddo had been the scene of many ancient and
current battles. At a crossroads of several trade routes and on the
water, the city was constantly destroyed and rebuilt.

As a final thought? don?t dwell on individual lines in Revelation,
read the whole chapter and ask yourself what the main point is, and
what is it trying to say in a general sense. Which of the seven
churches is being addressed, and what was their struggle? Place that
thought into what was going on with the early Christians and the Roman
empire at that time in history, and you will understand. Then ask
yourself what the overall point of the writing is, or what moved John
so much that he felt compelled to lash out with such gusto. Like other
revolutionaries, he was a man with a mission, and he was going to make
a point. One more intriguing question to ask yourself is why was
Revelation included in the final canon of the Bible when it is such a
clear break from the whole tone of the New Testament?.

OK, enough blathering from me?.comments, thoughts, rebuttals welcomed?.

Hi!I've finally found out how to log in and add a comment! :-) So far
I've only been wondering about reading & agreeing. More often not.
But first I'd like to say I'm  self-taught in  English. I won't always
understand puns and I certainly don't want to be insulting or abusive.
If someone does get offended, it's because I was missunderstood -
believe me!
Well ... enough with that... 'safe margin'.

Slakemoth: Revelation differs from all other Biblical forms of
writtings. Yes, it's not hard to believe that some Christians were
'freaking out', out of fear. ( A question: if Christians were freaking
out of fear of man-were they real Christians or just 'Christians'?)
- Anyway, Apostles were encouraging and correctin them with EPISTLES!!! 
Revelation is not just another Epistle. We cannot ascribe it's purpose
to solely encouraging the Christians in the first century. I'm sure
you'll agree it's much more than that:
(Rev 1:1 - "...and presented [it] in signs".) If someone presents you
something in signs, that means he believes you can or will understand
the signs and translate them into pattern(s). Having a pattern (of
thoughts...behaviour...happenings...)definetly proves it's not limited
to just a certain period of time. Than it's of a GENERAL importance!!

When you say that "this intense paranoia and fear was the backdrop for
John's Revelation.", you've just ascribed it's origin to John, not
God!!!: Like..HE felt the Christianity was threatened, so HE wrote a
book!!!!!!! Yes, it was men who were writting the ideas down, but not
on account of their own 'impulse'! And certainly not their own ideas.
So... Revelation is FAR from being only a cry to 'hold the faith' as
you've said. (Have I misunderstood you?)

You are absolutely right when you say 'Say something vague enough and
people will make it fit anything they want it to'. (->Brian's life);-)
But Revelation is not vague.
I wused to wonder why the Bible was not written the way it would be
impossible to missunderstand it! .Like: why doesn't it say there is -
or is not hell- Or Paradise. Or soul...
Now I know; it's written the way it's possible to understand it only
if you approach it having the right motivation in your heart. Only
than you will give it enough time to justify itself. Otherwise, you'll
be jumping into the conclusion(s) trying to explain your own theories.
And since we are so isolated from each other, we all have A LOT of
theories and are dieing to share them. Even on account to the truth.
And so unfortunately we often prefer 'them to the truth'.

To return to the 'lightmotiff': the Bible explains itself. 
Amongst other, I was very impressed by this example: The Bible says
that in the New World there will be no more sea. (Rev 21:1)
So what do you say... did John say there'll be no more sea(s) in the
Roman Empire???
Pugwash... does it mean you will sail no more in the New World???

Hi, Fruitfly

Welcome to the Comment arena.

Your English reads pretty good to me.

Happy Flying, Old Fruit!

Bryan

Fruitfly, hello and welcome... First off, your english is absolutely
fine, certainly better than my ______ ( insert any other language
here). And as far as I'm concerned, don't ever fear offending me, it
won't happen, and I hope nothing I ever write gets anyone too worked
up....
   To address your post, I first need to clarify my stance on the
Bible. People choose to view the Bible in 1 of 3 ways... Innerant,
Inspired, or Human. Innerant means "God's mouth to the pen", or what
it says is exactly what God intended it to be, exactly. Inspired means
that while the words are not exact ( they have changed over time) the
overall message and intent is as God wanted it. And "Human" ( my own
term) to mean the writings were simply from people with an intense
devotion to God and their religion. That the writings are simply
"inspired" the same way a Shakesperean play is "inspired", meaning not
from God, but just people with an idea and a need to express.

ARRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!! will some GOOGLE employee please stop the "TAB"
key from entering your post before you're done typing!!!!!

ANYWAY...TO CONTINUE......

   I am very much in the "Human" camp when it comes to the Bible and
the writing of each book. I have always said that the Bible is FOR
God, not FROM God. Obviously you ( Fruitfly) and Pugwash are of a
different mindset. Thats fine with me, but I can't get behind that
type of biblical stance.  Years of research have shown me otherwise.
Looking at the Bible's history as well as the older versions of the
books included, you simply will see too much of man's handiwork. This
shouldn't diminish the overall message of the scriptures, in my
opinion it makes the Bible a bit more impressive. So when you say..

    "you've just ascribed it's origin to John, not God!!!: Like..HE
felt the Christianity was threatened, so HE wrote a book!!!!!!! Yes,
it was men who were writting the ideas down, but not on account of
their own 'impulse'! And  certainly not their own ideas. So...
Revelation is FAR from being only a cry to 'hold the faith' as you've
said. (Have I misunderstood you?)"

.... We simply have a difference of opinion on the Bible's origins..
and no you did not mis-understand me, that is what I meant, and still
stand behind.

As far as your other questions... yes Revelation has a different style
from say Paul's epistles, and it is cetainly different in tone than
the letters Paul wrote to the various cities telling them to "keep the
faith", but as I said before it was a whole new ball game, and drastic
times called for drastic measures. John's writings fall under the
category of "Apocalytic writings" in style and content, very different
from Paul's letters. This link is an excellent article on these types
of writing, their structure, and purpose.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/Rev/apocalyptic.htm

  I stand behind what I said earlier about John's purpose and intent
for the writings, as well as the events that drove him to write it. As
far as your assertion that because it is in "signs" then there are
"patterns" and therefore it is "general"  and not specific to John's
plight... You are reading an awful lot into something..which is what
makes Revealtion so fascinating. I will simply say this to you...take
any time in history and you can find events that you can make fit into
the "end-of-days" if you try hard enough.....but as I said
before...its cryptic images will allow this to happen, and it is
always "just around the corner".

"I was very impressed by this example: The Bible says that in the New
World there will be no more sea. (Rev 21:1)So what do you say... did
John say there'll be no more sea(s) in the Roman Empire???
Pugwash... does it mean you will sail no more in the New World???"

John is describing the new paradise...and yes he is saying there will
be no more sea, and a new kingdom etc. He is describing a new world
where everything is wonderful, and all the pain and hurt is gone. Why
there is no more sea? who knows.. It was probably symbolic of a no
longer divided world. John is describing a world swept clean and
rebuilt as a paradise after a horrible tribulation, I think you would
have to throw out your concept of what the world would be like at that
point, certianly "Seas" would be pretty low on the list if I was
standing there. Keep reading and you will see the symbolic numerology
at work, with 3's, and 12's everywhere, but this type of numerology
hold little significance to us today. Look at 21:20, here he is
listing precious stones that people don't even know what they are
today...why? because they were symbolic to the people in John's
time......

Okay... I've worn myself out, and I can't believe poeple are that into
what I'm writing here, so I will stop here.  enjoy and I will see you
later...sorry about the triple post..I am breaking off my tab key so I
don't do that anymore

And a welcome, Fruitfly, from me, too.
I think if the Bible were inerrant, free of error, God's word through
men's pens  -as Muslims believe the Koran to be- there would be no
need for four gospels, and as we know, there are others, chosen by men
to be omitted from the canon.  Yes, one could say that their
decision(s) were Godly inspired, but then still, why four versions?

John Macarthur's view of who Babylon the Great is... 

I think Babylon the Great represents a worldwide religious system. In
chapter 17, a restoration of the original, anti-God paganism that was
associated with the Tower of Babel in Genesis, and thus it bears the
same name. But, I think it?s a worldwide religious system, and it
appears to me, if you read carefully through chapter 17, it centers
itself in a city with seven hills, which isn?t too hard to figure out:
Rome. It seems to me too that it?s bigger than Rome because it?s drunk
with the blood of all the martyrs, which means it takes all false
religion that has massacred the true church throughout all the
centuries--and masses all of that in one final, great, massive,
religious, false system. The antichrist, along with the false prophet,
allow this system to exist for a while, and then consume that false
religious system when the antichrist establishes himself as the only
one to be worshipped. That sets up the final Babylon, which is more of
a secular world-economics situation, that you see in chapter 18.

But, I see it as a conglomerate system of false religion worldwide
that is centered in the city of Rome and has, as its titular head,
very likely the Pope, whom some believe would even be the kind of
person that could serve as antichrist or the false prophet. So, I see
it as a world religious system, sort of centered in Rome.

@pcmomma - I don't understand this; In the first sentence you say
"Babylon the Great represents a worldwide religious system". Fine. But
very soon you deny yourself limiting it just to Rome. If we take the
associations as a mean of understanding, you might have also said that
it's the Tower of Babylon which had 7 stores... this will take us
nowhere. I agree with Pugwash when he says that it's the Bible that
should explain itself.
For instance: Bible mentions 7 (most prominent) kingdoms of the Earth
through time.-(From the Bible's perspective that is, but let's not go
astray here- it may be another topic)
- They can be identyfied as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, Rome , but there is also the seventh - Da 2:33b.
Daniel counts 5 of them (Da 2:32,33) because he starts with Babylon
(Da 2:39) Since Daniel wrote his book in the 7th c. BC, John had more
than enough time to get acquanted with it. :) He KNEW ther'll be
another 'kingdom' after Roman Empire. Compare Rev 17:10!!!
Now, if that's not a proof the symbol of Babylon the Great is not
limited only to tthe Roman Empire.....

@ slakemoth - "Why there is no more sea? who knows.. It was probably
symbolic of a no longer divided world."

->Isa 57:20

Now apply it to Isa 27:1; Mat 14:25; Jud 13a......
That also makes understandable the description of Babylon in Isa 21:1a
and that brings us back to the topic.

See - any particular word with a symbolic meaning has the same
symbolic meaning throughout the whole Bible. Only that way the Bible
explains itself and can be understood. Without ANY contradictions.
Basically, it's a pure scientific approach!: 1)Observe 2)Make a theory
3)Apply the theory and see if the results are as expected. If they
aren't - the theory is wrong.

P.S. But of course - Gen 40:8b; Da 2:28a; Pro 4:18

@myoarin- thank you too for the welcome.
'Only' 4 gospels you say? Yeah, why not 10 - it's a nice round number? ;-)

Imagine this: Your great-great uncle died and in his will he left you
a significant property. Your jelous cousin  appears out of blue before
the judge and says 'I've got uncle's LATEST will according to which I
inherit everything'. So the judge changes his decision - even without
taking a look at the 'will'- and decides your cousin is right.
What do you do?
-ask for at least a proof this 'will' was not forged (you know it's
contrary to the very basics your uncle was thinking)
-accept the decision saying 'well.... there's always a posibillity
someone pops up with 'the latest' will and that's good enough for me'

Wow....where to begin... First off in my mind I'm hearing way to much
"The bible is true because the Bible says so", which doesn't wash for
me. This of course comes back around to how you view the writings (
Innerant, Inspired, or Human) and as I said before, we are going to
have to part ways significantly on that one.  What you must understand
is that the Bible you are reading has been greatly edited and scripted
to read more fluidly. In the writing's oldest forms ( Hebrew, Greek
and Aramaic) there are clear wording differences, writing styles and
authorship. To say "look how well the whole thing reads, and the same
term for something here appears here as well..." you can completely
attribute that to translations and new versions of the Bible. I can
guarantee you that if you were to read these books in their oldest
forms they would be as different in style and terms as Dr Suess and
Stephen King.

Fruitfly your say "any particular word with a symbolic meaning has the same
symbolic meaning throughout the whole Bible. Only that way the Bible
explains itself and can be understood. Without ANY contradictions."
I'm sorry but that is just not true. The later translators may have
spread the same word throughout, but it is simply revisionist. And to
say there are no contradictions in the Bible is false on even a base
level, but that is an entirely different discussion. A good example of
symbology being co-opted to reinforce a point is the evolution of the
concept of Satan and demons. To the ancient Hebrews God was all
powerful and controlled everything. He was responsible for all good
and bad in the world, and had nothing that could come even close to
challanging that. They simply did not believe in that way..period.
This idea was explored at length in JOB. But you say "but Satan did
all the damage to Job". it was not "Satan" as you think of it today
that was in that story, but rather "The Satan" or the apsect of God
whose job it was to question or challange. it is this "character's
role in the Job narrative to move the story along, and he serves to
carry out God's wish to test Job. Nothing is done without the express
permission of God, and God clearly lays out the limits of what is to
be done to Job, and there is no deviation.In the years following the
Babylonian Exile, the Hebrews began to incorporate more mythos of
Demons into their beliefs and writings, This hit its heyday around 200
- 100 BC so by the time Jesus rolls onto the scene demons and evil
spirits are at the root of everything ( there are only 4 references to
any kind of "evil spirit" in the whole of the Old Testament, and those
are a stretch, while the New Testament contains hundreds upon
hundreds). Of course they need a leader, so who better than Satan...
By the time the catholic church gets a hold of the writings they have
the "characters" and must now "prove" them. It is at this time in the
Middle ages that the serpent in Genesis is attached to the devil, that
the name Lucifer is attached, that all the current beliefs and new
testament theology is thrust upon the writings of Hebrew Old
Testament. Theya re doing anything they can to create a back history
for Satan, and bottom line, the stories of Genesis never had a devil
that tempted Eve, simply a crafty snake that was getting one over.....
which was a Hebrew version of an even older story. Ideas close to
2,000 - 3,000 years older had been overlaid onto the stories to "make
them work" with what the present wanted it to be. Its the same thing
we do today with the ten commandments, twisting their meaning to fit
modern situations....
   To bring this full circle, your assesment that the symbology
throughout the Bible is common is in my opinion flawed and not totally
the case. Sure John writing revelation was quite familiar with the
other apocalyptic writings ( did you read the article i linked to
previously?) and he was definitely emmulating Daniel, and he was
absolutely pulling symbolic references from other books into his
writing, that is what I was saying about Babylon as a reference to
Rome...similar situation...enemy of a different name, one John's
audience could relate to. But you simply cannot put the writings of
Revelation into a modern time period ( well you can...but you
shouldn't). It is simply dishonest to the intent of the original work,
and in the end disrespects the book the same way putting Satan into
the garden of eden does. It is meant to be viewed within the context
of when, why, and how it was written, and the lessons learned are what
is to be taken into today....

you've gone and tricked me into writing for a whole lunch break
again......I have tacos calling my name.....Peace out.

Oh, and by the way.... The reason there are 4 gospels is that the
early Roman catholic church, when deciding on which books would be
included into the final new testament canon use the following logic:
There are 4 seasons, 4 points to the compass, 4 pillars of the earth,
4 (insert something else 4 here), so there must be 4 gospels.....
Let's see, we have Mark, Mathew and Luke which are extremely similar (
but again have different target audiences and intent) we need a
fourth.... hmmmm...from all these other writings we have lets pick one
more..... I like John...you cool with that? OK..John it is... we now
have our 4th book, and all is harmonious... call the printer!!

...and to further complicate matters the names Mark Matthew Luke and
John were "assigned" to the writings.....not even the names of the
authors...

Hey, you may hear voices, but it doesn't mean I've written anything
like "The Bible is true because the Bible says so". Simply because
that would be wrong and besides,I don't believe in dogmas. In matter
of fact there are no dogmas; it's just a pathetic way of covering up
ignorance.

Oh boy, have you mixed everyhing together. I must say that I'm tempted
to answer all the issues you've mentioned, but so far I've learned my
lesson - there's no point. There's no chance you're ever gonna stop,
slap your forhead and say something like 'that's right - I was wrong'.
No way. You're just gonna change the subject.
This is not a basis for a serious discussion.
You say you're allergic to "The bible is true because the Bible says
so" and yet you yourself say just a little later "You must understand"
and "I can guarantee you that..."!!!!!!!
 On what basis?? Every conclusion is based on the premises. Where are
yours? Where are the facts on which you base your oppinion? You were
reacting mostly to the way I feel and think about the Bible. That's my
business. React to the stuff I wrote above.
You say: "In the writing's oldest forms ( Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic)
there are clear wording differences, writing styles and authorship."
Oh, please, DO try me on this one!!!!!! True, I don't speak Aramaic
and Hebrew, but I do Latin and Greek. (and I have-let's say- a few old
translations. Even manuscripts ;-) There's virtually nothing in
between Vulgatae and King James Version. The most obvious difference
is word order due to the different construction of the sentences in
Latin and English. King James translation even copyed Jerome's
wrongful replacement of Jehovah's (Jahweh's) name with LORD. EVEN
THAT!!That covers the period of some 1200 years. And to check out the
differences before that, surf the web for Qumran (Dead See scrolls) -
(http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm)

Than, I sure hope you won't get insulted, but understanding the
relationship between God, Satan, demons, existence and permitting the
evil and Job is B-A-S-I-C-S!!!!

Come on, let's have a serious discussion.
What is this: "...the early Roman catholic church, when deciding on
which books would be included into the final new testament canon..."
Hey! The so-called Christian church split into the Western Roman Catholic
Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. That's 956 years after
John wrote the words in Rev 22:18,19!!!
So what are we talking about? Certainly not about the subject.

Pugwash,
just read your last clarification:  Congratulations, you sure have
generated some more discussion.  I hope you are enjoying it, whatever
you may think about the one side or other.

Regards,

Fruitfly, no disrespect intended towards you or any others in my
postings, adn I have never intended to "call-out" or belittle any
thoughts put out by another. While you are probably right about me not
really having a forehead slap and an "you are right I was wrong"
moment I am always ready to listen to, read and consider anything
anyone sends my way.  I have spent years getting to the ideas I hold
now, and I am willing to spend years more getting somewhere else. In
that spirit I will address some of the things you have said and we can
get back to the question at hand or move on... I will agree that I
have taken the original question way off on a tangent that probably
needs to be cut off, and that the Google Answers people probably never
intended this to become a big forum.

We can agree for sure on dogma, and I apologize if I took your words
out of context... but that was my interpretation of "any particular
word with a symbolic meaning has the same symbolic meaning throughout
the whole Bible. Only that way the Bible explains itself and can be
understood. Without ANY contradictions." You obviously hold a more
"inspired" opinion of the Bible than I do, again a difference of
opinion that colors the way we view the writings. You alluded to this
previously when questioning my statement about John's authorship (
being merely human).

You seem to take offense when I wrote ...

"What you must understand is that the Bible you are reading has been
greatly edited and scripted to read more fluidly."

"I can guarantee you that if you were to read these books in their oldest
forms they would be as different in style and terms as Dr Suess and
Stephen King."

Are those statements wrong? I didn't mean for my language to sound
harsh or like I have all the answers, but I must say that I stand
behind those statements. You also say "You were reacting mostly to the
way I feel and think about the Bible. That's my business. React to the
stuff I wrote above." I agree.. I thought I was addressing the
posting....never meant to make it seem like I was tearing down your
opinion of scripture.

Not sure what you are contending in the next paragraph, but again I
stand by my earlier statements. I am quite familiar with the Vulgate
and dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint, and the process by which they
came about and how each time a translation occured. We are just going
to have to disagree on how the product we are reading today differs
from those early manuscripts, but the point I was attempting to make
was that in their older forms, very clear differences in authorship,
style and verbage are apparent. Agree /disagree?

As far as the Satan tangent... no offense taken, I already said
earlier that you will not offend me. I don't agree that what I said
was "basic", but again thats opinion. The point I was attempting to
make was that "symbols" in the Bible have been changed over the years
and are not what most people are used to hearing...again trying to
address your previous post.... no attack on you.

and lastly you are right.. the canonization and split are another
subject all together, and do not belong here....tangent ended.

I will rest on my original post addressing who "Babylon the great"
represents in Revelation, and I think I backed that up fairly well,
but again...simply my opinion, and worth no more or less than any
other here......

Hey, no offense taken here. Finally, I could have signed my posts with
wasp or hornet or fly... How can I take something PERSONALLY? Unless
you have something against fruitflies personally!? ;-)
But I am somewhat dissapointed that you don't backup your statements
with data and sources of your data. You also choose to ignore the
things you don't agree with:
"For instance: Bible mentions 7 (most prominent) kingdoms of the Earth
through time (...)They can be identyfied as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon,
Medo-Persia,Greece, Rome , but there is also the seventh - Da 2:33b.
Daniel counts 5 of them (Da 2:32,33) because he starts with Babylon
(Da 2:39) Since Daniel wrote his book in the 7th c. BC, John had more
than enough time to get acquanted with it. :) He KNEW ther'll be
another 'kingdom' after Roman Empire. Compare Rev 17:10!!!"

If I'm wrong, where's my mistake; if not - how can you still insist
Babiylon the Great is the Roman Empire!?

Ahhhh!!!That reminds me of a certain experience; a month or so ago
when preaching from door to door I foud an old "friend". (I should say
acquaintance, but I dont know how to spell it!:-) ) Anyway, he
appeared to show interest in the Bible and we had a few nice talks.
But very soon it turned out he just wanted a company to talk about his
ideas. He wasn't interested at all in what's right or wrong.
This was the highlight of his 'presentation': not only it's OK to
smoke marijuana, but it's according to God's will! The proof? -Hos
4:12 - "My nation asks the trees and its stick answers them..." There
was no point in showing the context, pointing out the fornication the
Hebrews were doingh under the trees, showing the symbolic meaning of
the stick as something that shows the direction(as opposed to a
joint!! hahaha)He was sticking to what he wanted to believe regardless
of anything.
There's a term 'intelectual honesty'- it's defined as an ability to
put one's own beliefs under the test of the new facts as well as the
readiness to change them in accordance. It's obvious this guy was
lacking it and it made further talks senseless.
Unfortunately, I don't see it here, either.

Just a comment on a couple of things Slakemoth says. Satan cannot be
just an 'evil aspect' of God. In the Bible he is a separate
individual. [Job 1; 7-12 and 2; 1-7. Matthew 4; 1-11. The second point
is the serpent being connected with the Garden of Eden, only in the
middle ages. The very old Apostle John wrote Revelation in 96 C.E. and
in chapter 12 verse 9, he said " So down the great dragon was hurled,
THE ORIGINAL SERPENT, the one called Devil and Satan, who is
misleading the entire inhabited earth, and his angels were hurled down
with him". My thoughts on the "sea" is it referes to the mass of
humanity indifferent to God,[Isaiah 57;20] and is the same as the
'waters' that Babylon the Great 'sits' on [Rev. 17; 1,15]. Verse 15 is
very specific. "The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting,
means people and crowds and nations and tongues. 16. And the ten horns
and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her
devastated and naked...17..for God put it into their hearts to carry
out his thought....It is only religion that controls or sits on many
people, regardless of who governs them. It seems religion as we know
it today will be done away with.

and apologies to Fruitfly for not saying "Hi and Welcome" first.

I have contemplated a long post, quoting tons of Bible passages and
all the symbology and its supposed meaning, but I am just not
interested in doing that, its not how I view the Bible, and I do not
care to go down that path, in my mind it really doesn't hold water. I
will however address your comments in a general sense, and provide a
link to something I feel supports my opinion in the manner you are
looking for.

First, while you and I disagree on when Daniel was written, we
absolutely  agree that John was quite familiar with the book and most
certainly referenced it in his writings. The whole format and style of
the apocalyptic writings were very well known, and its symbology would
be readily recognized by anyone reading it.

The only place you seem to disagree with me is that I think everything
is aimed at Rome. I come at this again from my "human" lens that I
view the Bible through. I see real people in real trouble, and someone
who spoke up and tried to get people back on "the path". I see someone
who used the most aggressive and symbolic writings style of the time
and a style that people knew meant business. I see number symbology
all over the place 7's, 12's, 3's... all of it coming together with a
purpose...to rally against their oppressor ROME. History tells me this
is what was happening and history tells me this is how people react.
Daniel's writer did the same thing to call the faithful back in the
face of Hellenism by using Nebuchadnezzer and the babylonian exile as
a setting. It is probably important for me at this point to say
straight out that I do not believe in biblical prophecy, meaning
people seeing the future and writing it hundreds of years, or even
decades before it comes to pass. This is probably the root of our
disagreement with the composition date of Daniel.

To appease you I have pasted in several quotes from the article that I
link to at the end. It is quite a long system of explaning the symbols
and relationship between Daniel and Revelation..lots of scripture
quotes and interpretation of these quotes, including Revelation
17:10..... The author of this article arrives at the same conclusion I
do...but in the manner that I think you are asking me to provide.

"On the other hand, part of the purpose of the book of Revelation is
to complete the presentation of the end of human history and in
particular with the culmination of history in the kingdom of the
Messiah Jesus Christ. This being the case, part of what Revelation
seeks to do is to pull together many prophetic visions and themes as
well as figures depicted in the Old Testament. Therefore, when
discussing the empire of the antichrist, Revelation also depicts for
us the complete picture of the history behind this imperial succession
by connecting these Gentile empires together in much the same way as
Daniel 2 does. However, in order to provide a complete picture of the
history behind these empires, Revelation makes sure to include all of
the seven kingdoms in this succession.....

....In summary, the seven heads of the first beast of Revelation 13
would be Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the
yet to be identified "kingdom of clay." This interpretation will be
further corroborated and commented on by Revelation 17......

.....When we get to Revelation 17 we will find further support that it
is Rome, especially Eastern (Byzantium) Rome, which is the revived
empire or head of this first beast. One such additional support, which
Revelation 17 will provide is through the connections between Daniel 7
and 8's "little horn," Revelation 13's "mouth speaking blasphemies,"
and Revelation 17's discussion of the 10 kings and the eighth
king.....

....Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and
one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must
continue a short space....

....First, Revelation 17:10 corroborates our interpretation that the
seven heads of Revelation 13's first beast are a succession of kings
and kingdoms rather than contemporaries. Second, these seven kings
correspond to the following imperial kingdoms, which they ruled over.
The five that are fallen were: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia,
and Greece. The one that was, when John was writing Revelation, is
Rome. And then there was one yet to come after Rome. And this seventh,
which would come after Rome, would exist only for a short space or
time. This is consistent with the symbolic precedent and the depiction
of the succession we have seen so far from our examination of Daniel
and history.....

......Since the beast "yet is" in John's time and, therefore, is the
king that "is" among the succession of seven kings, this further
corroborates that Rome is the head (king and empire) that are revived.
In fact, the overall description of the history of this beast given in
verse 8a and 11 are meant as a depiction of this existence, cessation,
and restoration."


Here is the link to the article I took the above quotes from, I think
you will enjoy it and it is the kind of biblical study you like to
wrap your mind around.....but not me, too much assumption and building
on previous assumptions to get to the next.

http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/rev-symbols12.html
click "on to next section" at the end to get to the Revelation 17:10
stuff you quoted


It has been my assessment all along, that the christians feared the
legacy of Nero, that emperor Domitian had begun full scale persecution
of christians, simply for being christian, and this was what John was
crying out against. Therefore Rome is the target of his writing.
Telling me that I am wrong because of symbol interpretation is not
going to convince me. History, archeology, and other related,
non-bilical writings from the period to reinforce what the bible is
saying....then you will have my ear.

Fruitfly.. I believe I have been quite forthcoming as to where my
opinions come from..... and "intellectual dishonesty" is hardly a
label that fits what I have been expressing. Quite the opposite, I
believe I have been quite forthcoming on how I got to where I got. I
have not read anything here that seriously challanges my opinions of
Revelation. On that note I would like to hear your opinion of the
initial question Pugwash asks.. in your mind "who is Babylon the Great
representing?" I think you have eluded to something when you said
"Now, if that's not a proof the symbol of Babylon the Great is not
limited only to the Roman Empire....." but I am interested in what you
believe that to be.

and lastly... You previously said " I sure hope you won't get
insulted, but understanding the relationship between God, Satan,
demons, existence and permitting the evil and Job is B-A-S-I-C-S!!!!"
On that note would you care to comment on Pugwash's last posting?

And I back what you are saying 100% about your friend... a single
bible passage can justify anything you want it to. That passages, and
books must be viewed within the context of what was being
expressed....something I have been saying all along. that is whay I
such a problem with people jumping all over  the bible for single
passages to try to support a single argument. Anyway I promised not to
write a long post... but it looks like I have failed miserably...

..one last question.. Fruitfly, are you a Jehovah's witness by chance?
Several things you have said are leading me to wonder....

Hi Slakemoth. Thanks for the reply. When John wrote Revelation, it was
the Roman Empire that 'now is'. Five gone, one present [Roman empire]
One to come [ an extension of the Roman Empire..might I suggest the
'Western powers', U.S.A. and Britain,the seventh,  and an eighth that
grew out of the seventh. The United Nations. [Rev.17;11]. Consider
where the U.N. is situated. Right in the middle of the main city in
the U.S.A. They even finance the largest part of it. It is the eighth
that will destroy [ ban??] all religion in its search to achieve
peace, then it will be destroyed [Rev. 17;11 .."and it goes off into
destruction..."] As the final power,the eighth,  It must be God who
does the destroying.  Hi again Fruitfly..I certainly hope, and pray,
that I will be allowed to circumnavigate the new world, in something a
bit bigger that what I have now!. And swim with the 'bities'.

First off to answer a previously asked question.. John MacArthur Jr.
is the pastor at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California.

Second, Pugwash..I appreciate your answer, and while I think you are
bringing too much of the present into the past I can also appreciate
the time and energy you have brought to bear on the question. I think
you haev also tapped into why the book of Revelation has fascinated
people for all these years.

Hi Slakemoth!
Thanks for the effort; that was really an exhaustive answer.
Please, I'd like to be understood when it comes to the following: When
I first found the truth, I was very zealous, but I lacked the 'ability
of distinction'. I was visiting some forums vhere I presented my
oppinion, but also participated the discussions. That was a mistake.
And still is. It is pointless.
It's one thing to explain your (biblical) oppinion on a certain issue
when someone asks you a specific question, and completely another when
you try to answer everything you dissagree with. That results with
'scraping the surface'and jumping from one subject to another without
really paying attention to it.
I won't fall for it the second time.
Having that on mind, I wouldn't call google answers 'a forum'. And in
that extent, it's acceptable to me. I will sometimes say what the
Bible has to say about a topic and if someone wants an explanation or
a clearification - of course- I will do my best. But I will not enter
the discussions like 'You're wrong and I'm right, and here's why...?'

I never meant to say you were dishonest in your approach or something
like that. It's just a name for a certain quality that allows a person
to accept a new oppinion on the basis of the new arguments, and not to
stick to his ideas regardless of anything. Who am I to say he or you
or someone else lacks that 'intelectual honesty'? Nobody! I don't read
hearts. But I do find the lack of that carachteristic an
unsurmountable difficulty when trying to reach an agreement. I hope
you share my oppinion on this one?

According to the Bible and its symbolic, Babylon the Great is a joint
name for all the religions, past and present, that are not in
accordance with God's will. Simple as that.

And finally, you ask me if I'm Jehovah's witness? 
You made me think. Can I answer such a serious question with certainty? 
Well... I can only say I'm doing my best He might eventually consider me as such.

Just in case anyone is interested in checking back on old questions. A
good effort by all. Keeping in mind that others who do not comment are
reading what we write, Bible information is getting to people who
usually will not listen. Thanks again to all.